Similar to Welpe's situation

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by representing

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't deal with it then because at the time I didn't know exactly when that player is a bench player and didn't want to wrongfully make the coach sit. I was talking with my partner and the V officials after the game about it. I'm going to be honest about what i would have done, but I now know this isn't correct.

report personal foul
report technical foul
indirect technical to the coach (when table let me know player had 5 fouls, I would've said to the coach that this is his 5th foul, and he had to sit because he was a benched player during the technical situation)
coach sits
two team fouls total for both personal and technical
fouled shooter gets 2 FT, team gets 2 FT
Ball at half-court.

That is what I would have done, but now I know that everything is correct except for the indirect technical to coach and that he sits. I also probably should give the player a flagrant technical foul instead of a technical. Then, the ball would be taken out-of-bounds underneath the basket to the team who just shot the free-throws because of the flagrant foul.

does this clear things up (not sarcastic)?

Didn't you indicate that the player bumped you before you reported the personal foul? If so, above in red is not correct.

And I don't have a clue how you came up with this.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Didn't you indicate that the player bumped you before you reported the personal foul? If so, above in red is not correct.

He mentioned that the part in red was what he would have done then but now knows the err of his ways. The rest speaks for itself. One step forward, two steps back...

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Smitty

He mentioned that the part in red was what he would have done then but now knows the err of his ways. The rest speaks for itself. One step forward, two steps back...

Ah, I see that now. Thanks. This thread is confusing me.

[representing]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Didn't you indicate that the player bumped you before you reported the personal foul? If so, above in red is not correct.

And I don't have a clue how you came up with this.

What's wrong with blue? I would like your clarification please.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by representing

What's wrong with blue? I would like your clarification please.

You state you would inbound the ball under the basket. Why?

[representing]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

You state you would inbound the ball under the basket. Why?

Flagrant and intentional fouls are at POI. Only technical fouls are at division line.

Edit: Read 7.5.4b and 7.5.6a

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by representing

Flagrant and intentional fouls are at POI. Only technical fouls are at division line.

Edit: Read 7.5.4b and 7.5.6a

Oh dear.

Edit: 7-5-4 b. has nothing to do with this play.

(And just as an FYI, the appropriate way to reference rules is with dashes, periods are for casebook plays. It helps keep everyone on the same page.)

[representing]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Oh dear.

Edit: 7-5-4 b. has nothing to do with this play.

(And just as an FYI, the appropriate way to reference rules is with dashes, periods are for casebook plays. It helps keep everyone on the same page.)

thanks for the fyi.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Oh dear.

Thank you for the laugh.

Summary:

• Official is bumped after calling foul, but before reporting
• Foul was player's 5th
• Official does nothing
• Official posts situation on website
• Official gets responses, but doesn't receive them well
• Official says he handles situations even though he didn't
• Official posts what he would have done with glaring rules application errors
• Official admits errors in what he would have done, but not all errors
• (Hopefully) official takes every bit of advice given to include reading the rule book for comprehension

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Didn't you indicate that the player bumped you before you reported the personal foul? If so, above in red is not correct.

And I don't have a clue how you came up with this.

Yes, it's laughably bad.

representing needs to step back and try to understand how many rules he's missed in this one scenario:

(1) It would be a flagrant technical foul. It's still a technical, so the throw-in is at the division line.

(2) Since the coach hadn't been notified of the player's 5th foul, he's not bench personnel at the time of the flagrant technical, so the coach does not receive an indirect technical foul.

We ran into a parent in the parking lot who seemed to be waiting for us. He was quite complimentary, even though his kid's team lost by 18 points -- he was amazed at how much "stress" we must be under. I actually laughed and said that I probably feel the least stress of anyone out there.

[representing]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Yes, it's laughably bad.

representing needs to step back and try to understand how many rules he's missed in this one scenario:

(1) It would be a flagrant technical foul. It's still a technical, so the throw-in is at the division line.

(2) Since the coach hadn't been notified of the player's 5th foul, he's not bench personnel at the time of the flagrant technical, so the coach does not receive an indirect technical foul.

We ran into a parent in the parking lot who seemed to be waiting for us. He was quite complimentary, even though his kid's team lost by 18 points -- he was amazed at how much "stress" we must be under. I actually laughed and said that I probably feel the least stress of anyone out there.

Oh, really? I thought Flagrant technical and personal fouls were all still under the classification of Flagrant, which would put the ball at POI. Thanks for correcting me. But I can't find anything in the book about the difference between flagrant personal and flagrant technical.

EDIT: I said I was wrong about number 2 in my post about the situation. YOU should read everything, so you wouldn't make a statement like that.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by representing

oh, really? I thought flagrant technical and personal fouls were all still under the classification of flagrant, which would put the ball at poi. Thanks for correcting me. But i can't find anything in the book about the difference between flagrant personal and flagrant technical.

4-19-4

[representing]

Originally Posted by tjones1

4-19-4

So it would be flagrant technical because the contact occurred during dead-ball. I got it now. Thanks TJ.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by representing

So it would be flagrant technical because the contact occurred during dead-ball. I got it now. Thanks TJ.

I feel like I am piling on. But...no...contact between a player and an official is not "live ball contact" the way you are suggesting. It does not matter if the ball is live or dead...if a player intentionally contacts an official, it is a technical foul (10-3-7a) and in your situation, I would also deem it a flagrant foul.

[representing]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I feel like I am piling on. But...no...contact between a player and an official is not "live ball contact" the way you are suggesting. It does not matter if the ball is live or dead...if a player intentionally contacts an official, it is a technical foul (10-3-7a) and in your situation, I would also deem it a flagrant foul.

Actually it is 10-3-6a what you're talking about, but thanks for the reference.